Bonner v. Kunzelman

Ohio Court of Appeals

Bonner v. Kunzelman

3 Ohio Law. Abs. 87

Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided December 30, 1924·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Epitomized Opinion

Action in partition between the devisees of Kunzelman, Schreiber filed a cross petition alleging a leasehold which Agatha Kunzelman had renewed Jan. 27, 1922 for a period of three years. Agatha Kunzelman, the lessor, had only a life estate under the will of her husband which provided that she had “full power to sell as she thinks best, mortgage to pay my debts if necessary, and do with as she pleases as long as she remains my widow.”

Upon the authority pf Wolff v. O’Brien (Mass.) 121 N. E. 368, the court held that the widow had full power and authority to make the lease in question.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

Epitomized Opinion

Action in partition between the devisees of Kunzelman, Schreiber filed a cross petition alleging a leasehold which Agatha Kunzelman had renewed Jan. 27, 1922 for a period of three years. Agatha Kunzelman, the lessor, had only a life estate under the will of her husband which provided that she had “full power to sell as she thinks best, mortgage to pay my debts if necessary, and do with as she pleases as long as she remains my widow.”

Upon the authority pf Wolff v. O’Brien (Mass.) 121 N. E. 368, the court held that the widow had full power and authority to make the lease in question.

Bonner v. Kunzelman, 3 Ohio Law. Abs. 87 (Ohio Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

3 Ohio Law. Abs. 87 (Bonner v. Kunzelman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related